Liftoff of the european minishuttle

[Anonymous No.7062120]

Today, at 13:00 UTC/08:00 EST, the european-built lightweight Vega launcher will lift-off from French Guyana, with the Intermediate eXperimental Vehicule (IXV), a mini-shuttle built by the European Space Agency, in order to demonstrate the ability for Europe to glide through the atmosphere and to recover a capsule from orbit.

It's the fourth flight of the Vega launcher, who performed flawlessly on its previous flights.

You will be able to follow it live here : http://www.livestream.com/spaceflightnow or here http://arianespace.tv/ (official link, but it doesn't seem to work for me)

[Anonymous No.7062122]

Well, apparently http://arianespace.tv/ is working but very laggy

[Anonymous No.7062123]

I forgotsome informations :
The launch window is 103 minutes long.
The broadcast will start at 12H45 UTC

[Anonymous No.7062131]

The sound test is annoying the daylights out of me. Still worth staying awake still 2am for.

[Anonymous No.7062136]

>>7062120
This accent.

[Anonymous No.7062137]

>this french accent

[Anonymous No.7062139]

I have a sudden need for fine wine.

[Anonymous No.7062141]

>inb4 flight is scrubbed due to pulling a NASA and not checking the valves

[Anonymous No.7062143]

JEAN-JACQUES IS BACK

[Anonymous No.7062144]

>>7062143
Woo!

[Anonymous No.7062148]

It got cancelled?

[Anonymous No.7062150]

>>7062148
Just on hold

[Anonymous No.7062151]

>>7062148
There is a 100 minutes launch window, it's not confirmed to be cancelled, just on hold.
T-5 min hold was actually a normal thing in old launch

[Anonymous No.7062153]

>>7062141
>was going to say "it's arianespace they never scrub"
>mfw countdown hold
>mfw i have no face

[Anonymous No.7062154]

>>7062148
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle_launch_countdown#T-9_minutes_and_counting

[Anonymous No.7062159]

>>7062153
DAMMIT ARIANESPACE I SAID TO CHECK THE VALVES!

[Anonymous No.7062165]

Move over for the superior spaceplane.

[Anonymous No.7062169]

>>7062165
>wings

[Anonymous No.7062171]

>>7062165
X-37B with wings is old tech. This computerized-paddle-steered minimal lifting body is the future. It's basically midway between a capsule and a spaceplane, which makes it a much more efficient shape for a reusable launch vehicle or crew capsule. No carrying wings to orbit, where they're useless.

[Anonymous No.7062177]

We have a green

[Anonymous No.7062178]

>>7062177
Goddamn it. And now my stream fucks up.

[Anonymous No.7062179]

Lift-off at 13H40 UTC

[Anonymous No.7062180]

What did the frensh woman just say?

[Anonymous No.7062182]

>>7062180

>>7062179

[Anonymous No.7062183]

>>7062178
Same here

[Anonymous No.7062184]

is the livestream lagging for anyone else?

[Anonymous No.7062185]

>>7062183
>>7062178

What stream are you using ?

[Anonymous No.7062187]

>>7062185
Because http://arianespace.tv/ works fine and is no more laggy

[Anonymous No.7062188]

>>7062185
spaceflightnow

[Anonymous No.7062189]

>>7062185
I'm on the stream here: http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/02/10/vv04-mission-status-center/
...and it's still showing "Temporary hold in the countdown."

God Livestream is useless. Hasn't everyone learned to stream through youtube yet?

[Anonymous No.7062191]

http://www.arianespace.tv/

use the superior stream guys

[Anonymous No.7062193]

>>7062189
That because it's on hold numbnuts

[Anonymous No.7062195]

I just wanna see this candle lit already.

[Anonymous No.7062196]

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Launchers/IXV/Watch_IXV_launch

Good quality stream.

[Anonymous No.7062197]

2 minutes to lift-off

[Anonymous No.7062198]

>>7062193
Fuck off. People were posting that stuff was happening, but nothing was happening on my stream, plus it was starting and stopping and buffering.

[Anonymous No.7062199]

GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGO

[Anonymous No.7062200]

T-1min

[Anonymous No.7062201]

>>7062200
dub dubs confirm a successful launch

[Anonymous No.7062203]

>that too-tight tripod

[Anonymous No.7062204]

shit, vega is the fastest rocket i've ever seen

[Anonymous No.7062205]

Thar she goes!

[Anonymous No.7062206]

>>7062200
Second stage already, catch up

[Anonymous No.7062207]

>>7062201
Shit, I wanted to see the latest short movie of michael bay

[Anonymous No.7062208]

>>7062204
the payload is light

[Anonymous No.7062209]

>>7062204
Solid-fuel rockets are like that. Loads of thrust for an easy liftoff, but limited impulse makes for extra stages and low payloads.

[Anonymous No.7062211]

Damn already at 100 clicks

[Anonymous No.7062212]

>le collage
>camera tracking fucks up
However it was accelerating fast as fuck.

[Anonymous No.7062213]

>>7062208
Max payload to LEO for Vega is 2300kg and the IXV is 1800kg, so it's not that light

[Anonymous No.7062214]

SpaceX failed, Ariane delivered, as usual.

[Anonymous No.7062215]

>>7062214
>failed

[Anonymous No.7062217]

>>7062214
>failed
How much experience does Ariane have over them?

[Anonymous No.7062219]

>>7062214
So SpaceX can control upper level winds and Air Force RADAR now?

[Anonymous No.7062220]

>>7062219
^This

[Anonymous No.7062221]

>>7062207
Gotta wait for the next SpaceX flight

[Anonymous No.7062222]

Ugh... LiveStream is such shit. Skipping and stuttering and missing stuff. It gets totally unwatchable if there's anything unusual about your system or connection. Youtube streams are so much better.

[Anonymous No.7062223]

why is it burning towards earth?
is it fixing the orbit?
when is it reentering?

[Anonymous No.7062224]

>>7062221
Guess I shouldn't buy stocks in them any time soon

[Anonymous No.7062225]

>>7062222
http://arianespace.tv/ is better

[Anonymous No.7062226]

>>7062224
spacex isn't public

[Anonymous No.7062227]

>>7062222
ARIANESPACE.TV YOU MERDE

[Anonymous No.7062228]

>>7062226
That's the joke

[Anonymous No.7062229]

>>7062223
It's suborbital, i suppose it's for fixing the orbit yes, and he should re-enter in a bit more than one hour

[Anonymous No.7062230]

>>7062228
k

[Anonymous No.7062231]

>>7062225
Yeah, that is working better. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.7062234]

cool

[Anonymous No.7062236]

noice

[Anonymous No.7062239]

>1h42m
my bandwidth limit is prolapsing

[Anonymous No.7062240]

>want to masturbate
>have to watch the entire livestream
why can't they have a qtπ as spokesman

[Anonymous No.7062241]

>>7062240
they did last time hrnghhh

[Anonymous No.7062242]

>"muh spaghetti and pizza"
ITS AN EU PROJECT YOU FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.7062243]

>tfw i missed the launch
Good to see continued work being done on lifting bodies.

[Anonymous No.7062244]

>this english
he's not even trying

[Anonymous No.7062246]

>>7062242
it is mostly Italian-funded

[Anonymous No.7062247]

Why are we watching a speech in the middle of the coverage of a flight?

What's going on with the IXV?

[Anonymous No.7062249]

>>7062247
literally nothing, it's coasting

[Anonymous No.7062250]

why cant germany and england into space?

[Anonymous No.7062252]

>>7062246
No.

[Anonymous No.7062253]

If anyone knows integrals, please tell me can you learn integrals if I dont know all of the excerpts (limes, f(x) and shit like that).

[Anonymous No.7062254]

>>7062250
Germany just had an astronaut on the ISS, England will get one later this year

[Anonymous No.7062256]

>>7062252
What do you mean "no"? It fucking is.

[Anonymous No.7062259]

>>7062254
they should have their own launchers and capsules.

[Anonymous No.7062260]

>>7062259
It doesn't exactly work like that

[Anonymous No.7062261]

>>7062256
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.7062263]

>>7062249
Which would you rather watch? A speech about how great their rocket is for not blowing up, and how they should all pat themselves on the back for a mission that's only halfway done? Or POV footage of a trip around the world in space?

[Anonymous No.7062264]

>>7062260
why not?
>tfw no "Adler" launcher made with glorious german egineering

[Anonymous No.7062265]

>>7062261
The Vega rocket is mostly Italian-funded.

[Anonymous No.7062266]

>>7062263
no cameras aboard the IXV

[Anonymous No.7062267]

>>7062266
>"muh 100 grams of payload"
>"muh bandwidth"
Why are spacecraft designers so gay?

[Anonymous No.7062268]

What are the next steps for IXV?

[Anonymous No.7062269]

>>7062265
OK sorry I thought you were talking about ESA.

[Anonymous No.7062270]

>>7062266

[Anonymous No.7062272]

>>7062264
Ariane is mostly krauts made tho

[Anonymous No.7062273]

>>7062268
none, it is a technology demonstrator

[Anonymous No.7062276]

>>7062272
france has 65% ownership of arianespace. germany only 20%

[Anonymous No.7062277]

>>7062272
J'te pisse à la raie, tête-de-nœud :3

[Anonymous No.7062278]

Oh God, stop talking this stuff up. "This is certainly no ordinary ship!"

IT IS AN ORDINARY SHIP, YOU SHITS! IT JUST PICKS UP THE INTERESTING SPACE THING!

This stuff is why space technology moves so slowly. So much self-congratulation. Being so impressed with such small things.

[Anonymous No.7062279]

>>7062278
>This stuff is why space technology moves so slowly
>So much self-congratulation
yep thats why

[Anonymous No.7062280]

>>7062278
uh-huh. So not because of astronomical (if you'll pardon the pun) launch costs?

[Anonymous No.7062286]

Vai Vega! Vai IXV!

[Anonymous No.7062291]

>>7062171
>landing with parachutes

But seriously, the IXV is fucking cool

[Anonymous No.7062292]

>>7062279
I assume that's a sneer, but without all this rhetoric that doing things in space is inherently impressive, even when you're repeating things that were half a century ago, there would be more open talk about how things are not advancing and the approach has to change.

For instance, today this is a minor test flight of a simple reentry vehicle concept. But we get speeches about how great it is that they're achieving this great accomplishment of a test flight of an engineering test sample, that they spent $200 million and years on, with many more hundreds of millions and years needing to be spent before it can actually be used for anything.

Meanwhile, in the private sector, there are tests of an actual precision-landing reusable first stage and actual precision-landing reusable manned capsule coming up. And the rhetoric coming out of Arianespace is, "It'll never work. These guys are going to fail, and then you'll see." because actual progress is threatening to their durdle-around-and-brag-about-it funding-for-prestige model.

[Anonymous No.7062293]

>>7062259
It's more efficient to just pay the Russians with decades of experience than to develop things on your own.
They could have made a manned version of the ATV which is basically what NASA is doing now in form of Orion.
They can't launch manned Soyuz from Kourou because they aren't designed for a ocean landing (in case of a failure).

[Anonymous No.7062295]

>>7062280
There's no practical reason for the launch costs to be astronomical.

They're building pyramids. Splashing out tax money is the purpose.

[Anonymous No.7062316]

>>7062120
Are there plans of making this into a larger manned vehicle?

[Anonymous No.7062317]

>>7062316
no

[Anonymous No.7062318]

>>7062295
As long as they don't have reusable launch vehicles, astronomical costs are inevitable. Several hundred million dollars is a perfectly reasonable price for a launch vehicle - after all, a jet airplane of similar size costs about as much and is about as hard to build - and if you're going to throw it away every launch that leads to some necessarily ridiculous costs per launch.

[Anonymous No.7062320]

That was pretty lame.
Great footage guys.

[Anonymous No.7062322]

>>7062316
This is just a testing platform for re-entry, something ESA lacks expertise in.

[Anonymous No.7062325]

>>7062316
the next step is to try to land it.

[Anonymous No.7062326]

did it reenter or the annoying italian never stopped talking?

[Anonymous No.7062327]

>>7062322
It's not something ESA lacks expertise in, it's something ESA lacks experience in. There have been many small tests in Europe with small suborbital demonstrators not to mention ARD.

[Anonymous No.7062330]

>>7062318
>Several hundred million dollars is a perfectly reasonable price for a launch vehicle

Not even Ariane costs this much.

[Anonymous No.7062332]

>>7062330
Yes it does, it's US$220M. I made sure to look that up before posting.

[Anonymous No.7062333]

>>7062330
No, that's for development costs.

An actual launch is ~$30 million

[Anonymous No.7062334]

>>7062316
Eventually, yes.

The next step is PRIDE, where they will be landing on a runway.

[Anonymous No.7062335]

>>7062318
>As long as they don't have reusable launch vehicles, astronomical costs are inevitable.
Bullshit. The V2 program and OTRAG showed that this isn't so. There's another route to low costs, which has been available from the early days: mass production.

>a jet airplane of similar size costs about as much and is about as hard to build
A jet airplane of similar size is much more complex. A rocket is just a cylinder with fuel tanks, and engines stuck on one the end. The rocket engines are much simpler than jet engines.

You can build a rocket out of rather ordinary, cheap steel. If you build your factory so machines crank out all of the parts, and the interconnections are kept simple, then it's about as expensive as producing canned soda. The rocket's bigger this way, but it costs so much less that it doesn't matter.

Rockets are built with a tremendous amount of hand labour, which is ridiculously slow and inefficient.

Rocket technology is all bound up in politics because of the military applications. Governments that have space capability don't want any demonstration of a cheap, simple expendable launch vehicle, because it would make ICBM technology too accessible to smaller, poorer countries.

[Anonymous No.7062337]

>>7062333
Oh, fuck me. I concede; critical research failure.

Just imagine it says "several dozen" instead of "several hundred."

[Anonymous No.7062338]

>>7062292
>repeating things that were half a century ago
Did the composite heat soak exist in the 60's? No.

>how things are not advancing
You say that on the eve of the 2015 Planck data release. I would much rather ESA continue spending money on worthwhile projects like this.

[Anonymous No.7062340]

>>7062332
That's not several hundred million.

[Anonymous No.7062342]

>>7062338
>Did the composite heat soak exist in the 60's? No.
When you do things in a slightly different way, that's not doing new things.

[Anonymous No.7062351]

>>7062342
By that logic SpaceX is not doing anything new as the Shuttle recovered and reused it's boosters.

[Anonymous No.7062355]

>>7062351
no, as they landed in the water the boosters became corroded, they couldn't be used again

[Anonymous No.7062368]

>>7062355
Nope.

>They are recovered by ships, returned to land, and refurbished for reuse.

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html

[Anonymous No.7062373]

>>7062334
And people were talking shit about the x37b because it has wings

[Anonymous No.7062387]

>>7062351
>>ceramic composite heat shield used on IXV
>carbon-carbon composite heat shield used on space shuttle

>>liquid-fuel rocket booster powered landing, ready to be refuelled and flown again; meaningful, cost-effective reuse which dramatically reduced launch costs
>solid-rocket booster parachute splashdown, search and recovery, extensive refurbishment/remanufacturing; meaningless reuse that doesn't save any money

Yeah, that's totally the same degree of difference.

[Anonymous No.7062402]

>>7062387
IXV isn't C-C. I don't think CMC has ever even been flown.

>that's totally the same degree of difference.
You said slightly different. No relativism about it.

> ready to be refuelled and flown again
We have no idea what it is going to take between flights.

[Anonymous No.7062460]

>>7062402
>You said slightly different. No relativism about it.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. Any interpretation I try comes out that you meant to say something incredibly stupid.

A re-entry vehicle with a different kind of composite material in the heat shield IS a slight difference. You're doing the same thing in a slightly different way. Flying a highly reusable vehicle in for a landing, as opposed to dropping a dubiously remanufacturable strap-on booster into the water, is a major difference.

>We have no idea what it is going to take between flights.
If they can't just refill the fluids and send it back up again, they're going to call it a failure and go back to the drawing board. They've announced plans to partially refuel on the barge immediately after landing and fly back to the main landing pad. They're not interested in reuse that involves some sort of major refurbishment.

[joker !X/09dS8r6o No.7062465]

So would the goal be to combine this with spacex's next gen reuseable rockets?

[Anonymous No.7062467]

>>7062465
no

[Anonymous No.7062471]

>>7062465
The goal is basically to make a X-37B.

Their plan is for a winged vehicle. They only made a wingless lifting body so they could more easily fit it in a Vega fairing.

[Anonymous No.7062499]

>>7062471
Why can't the Americans share the secrets of the X-37? Aren't they friends?

[Anonymous No.7062500]

>>7062499
haha ahahahahhahahahh

[Anonymous No.7062526]

>>7062460
>A re-entry vehicle with a different kind of composite material in the heat shield IS a slight difference
Define slight. It's subjective, and I don't believe IXV is "slightly different". The point of it to lead to PRIDE which would do the work of Foton but at lower cost. Replacing a single use system with a "highly reusable" vehicle.

>If they can't just refill the fluids and send it back up again, they're going to call it a failure and go back to the drawing board.
And yet they abandoned second stage recovery. It's never going to be fuel and fly.

[Anonymous No.7062571]

>>7062526
>I don't believe IXV is "slightly different".
That's because you don't understand it. It's closer to being a capsule than a spaceplane. Capsules normally generate lift, and steer as they fly, just not with paddles.

>The point of it to lead to PRIDE which would do the work of Foton but at lower cost. Replacing a single use system with a "highly reusable" vehicle.
PRIDE isn't about reducing costs at all. It's a technology testbed. When they talk about controlling costs, they're talking about not increasing costs too much.

This is about the ESA wanting to build their own space shuttle. Not because they intend to do it in a way that saves money or otherwise makes sense, but because NASA did it, and the Soviets did it, and they want to prove they can do it.

>they abandoned second stage recovery
Not true. It's just that their reusable second stage is coming with a new first stage, because it makes more sense to develop them together than apart.

Their original intention was for Raptor to be a hydrogen/oxygen upper-stage engine, for a reusable upper stage. However, they realized that methane/oxygen made more sense in many ways, and with a staged-combustion cycle, it would be suitable for the lower stage as well. So they can develop a whole new vehicle faster, and for less money, and get a better result, than by following their original plan of separately upgrading the upper stage.

>It's never going to be fuel and fly.
You have no basis for saying that.

[Anonymous No.7062589]

>>7062571
>It's closer to being a capsule than a spaceplane.
It's closer to being a fish than a giraffe. It's a lifting body. It naturally leads the way for PRIDE.

>PRIDE isn't about reducing costs at all.
No, it's about stimulating European capability. It will reduce cost at the same time.

>This is about the ESA wanting to build their own space shuttle.
No one said anything about that.

>Not true.
Do you have a recent source for that?

[Anonymous No.7062622]

>>7062589
>It naturally leads the way for PRIDE.
PRIDE is nothing new itself. It's just a copy of X-37B, which itself is uninteresting as anything but a technology testbed.

>Do you have a recent source for that?
Do you have a source for claiming that they've given up on recovery of the second stage? I can't fucking stand people who make strong claims, and as soon as somebody disputes them, they start demanding sources, while not providing any.

You read things, you remember them. Looking up sources is work. I'm not going to start letting random ignorant assholes on 4chan give me work assignments for things they could do just as easily on their own. You produce a source for your claim, I'll produce a source for my refutation.

[Anonymous No.7062676]

>>7062622
>PRIDE is nothing new itself.
Since when was X-37b flying scientific experiments? PRIDE offers a new capability.

>Do you have a source for claiming that they've given up on recovery of the second stage?
You agreed they were dropping it on F 9 and now you're asking for a source? You didn't have a problem with that until I asked for a source. You're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.7062689]

>>7062676
>PRIDE offers a new capability.
Over X-37B? You're delusional.

>You agreed they were dropping it on F 9 and now you're asking for a source?
You didn't say they were dropping it on F9. You said they were giving up on second stage recovery, period.

I'm not asking for a source, I'm calling you out as an ignorant, lazy asshole for playing it this way, and telling you that if you don't show any willingness to spend five minutes on google yourself, I'm sure as fuck not going to spend my time educating a hostile, mentally-deficient student.

[Anonymous No.7062710]

>>7062689
>Over X-37B? You're delusional.
Well then answer my question, when did X-37b start flying scientific experiments?

>You didn't say they were dropping it on F9.
Because I'm not aware of any serious information on the next generation vehicle. hence why I asked for a source.

>I'm not asking for a source
No, you're doing exactly what you accused me of, demanding a source to stifle debate. Fucking hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.7062739]

>>7062710
>when did X-37b start flying scientific experiments?
It's just payload, you complete idiot. Nobody knows exactly what X-37B has been doing, because it's an Air Force vehicle and the missions are classified, but they could fly scientific experiments on it if they wanted.

>you accused me of, demanding a source to stifle debate
That's not what I accused you of, you lazy little shit. I accused you of being a lazy little shit, which you keep proving that you are.

Every fucking reliable source that suggests that SpaceX may not do upper stage recovery on Falcon 9 explains that it's because they're doing another vehicle with upper stage recovery. If you find a source on your own claim, you'll have the source for mine, and it will take you all of 30 seconds on google.

[Anonymous No.7062763]

>>7062739
>It's just payload
What I said:
>PRIDE offers a new capability.
Which it does. Even if they were flying science we don't have access to it or the capability to fly them.

I haven't seen any real detail on reusability on future vehicles. Yes I have looked.

It's funny you call me lazy and yet have spent 3 posts calling me an asshole rather than just looking up this source.

[Anonymous No.7062778]

>>7062763
>>PRIDE offers a new capability.
>Which it does. Even if they were flying science we don't have access to it or the capability to fly them.
So now copying somebody else's capability is creating a new capability?

Anyway, what is this new capability? To take stuff to orbit? No... you don't need PRIDE for that, it won't even help. To bring stuff back from orbit? No... there are other options for that.

Like X-37, PRIDE is a technology testbed.

>Yes I have looked.
Yet you still don't post where you found this statement that SpaceX has abandoned 2nd stage recovery, which contains no mention of pursuing it in their next generation vehicle, and you still whine that I haven't spoonfed the information to you that I've pointed out accompanies every credible source suggesting that SpaceX won't do 2nd stage recovery on Falcon 9.

[Anonymous No.7062780]

>>7062214
This

[Anonymous No.7062805]

>>7062778
>there are other options for that.
Few for unmanned. It's basically Foton and X-37b, the later can't be accessed and the former is expensive. PRIDE offers a reusable platform for civilian space and science, which doesn't exist.

>Yet you still don't post where you found this statement that SpaceX has abandoned 2nd stage recovery
2 posts previously.
>I'm not asking for a source.

Quite clearly retarded. You're repeating yourself and you've made it clear you're not going to actually contribute anything of value.

[Anonymous No.7062857]

>>7062805
>It's basically Foton and X-37b
And Dragon. And just building your own re-entry vehicle, which is what people usually do.

>PRIDE offers a reusable platform for civilian space and science, which doesn't exist.
I repeat: DRAGON. Anyway, there are vanishingly few missions which require return from LEO. If you're going to do return, it's generally going to be from a BEO mission, which means you're not going to take anything heavy like PRIDE out there. Rather, you're going to make a tiny little capsule.

>2 posts previously.
>>I'm not asking for a source.
Are you completely unable to process things in context? I already explained that I meant I'm not asking you to give me a source for my benefit, I'm telling you that I'm not going to go do your homework for you, until you show that you're making some reasonable effort on your own.

Jesus Christ, you're a sickening little ignorant shit.

[Anonymous No.7063167]

are there videos?

[Anonymous No.7063481]

>>7062499

You wouldn't like it if a friend kept borrowing your stuff and never doing anything in return. Friendships are a give a take relationship with some forgiveness.

Also, the US gives up a seat for ISS missions so a ESA member can use it. That's $70 million/yr right there.

[Anonymous No.7063680]

>>7062373
Talk about hypocrisy

[Anonymous No.7063896]

>>7062171
>the future
>mid-'60s tech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_X-23_PRIME

[Onononos No.7063939]

>>7062334
Where you get the info about PRIDE?

>>7062857
Whats BEO mission?
>I repeat: DRAGON.
Have you seen Dragon after reentry? Hardly reusable.
>there are vanishingly few missions which require return from LEO
Because shuttle program died. Testing all weird shit in microgravity and sample return will be big once there is easy transport. Also needs more ISS's.

[Anonymous No.7063940]

>French Guyana
>white

[Anonymous No.7064198]

>>7063481
>never doing anything in return

What is ATV? What is MPCV SM?

ESA pays it's dues. NASA doesn't give up shit, that is ESA's share.

>>7062857
>It's generally going to be from a BEO mission
Bullshit. In the last 30 years there have been like 4 BEO returns. Far outnumbered by Foton missions alone.

[Anonymous No.7064240]

>>7063939
>Have you seen Dragon after reentry?
Have you?

>Hardly reusable.
Because it has some carbon deposits on the sides from the ablative heat shield? It's dirty, not damaged.

Dragon is certainly reusable. The only reason they're using a new one on every resupply mission is that NASA insisted on it, regardless of the cost. The cost savings of reusing a spacecraft is relatively minor, anyway, as long as the launch remains expensive.

>>there are vanishingly few missions which require return from LEO
>Because shuttle program died. Testing all weird shit in microgravity and sample return will be big once there is easy transport.
You know, there are two sides to "easy transport". And getting stuff down isn't the hard side.

There are a lot of things that "will be big once there is easy transport" upwards. There's nothing that "will be big once there is easy transport" downwards, as long as upward transport remains expensive. Furthermore, if there is a major reduction in launch costs, the development of return vehicles will become trivial because it will be possible to afford multiple test flights, instead of doing this crazy shit where you spend a hundred million dollars and years preparing for one test flight of an experimental vehicle that will never carry payload.

>>7064198
>In the last 30 years
So the past is the future? Extraterrestrial sample return is a major goal of pretty much every space exploration program. It's important. It's worth spending money on, and it needs to be sized for the mission and kept to minimum mass.

>Far outnumbered by Foton missions alone.
There really haven't been many Foton missions. Putting something in space for a few days, and then bringing it back is just not that important. Foton was thrown together cheaply, which is what makes sense for such experiments. It wasn't the product of a major development effort.

[Anonymous No.7064499]

>>7064240
>Extraterrestrial sample return is a major goal of pretty much every space exploration program.
>it needs to be sized for the mission and kept to minimum mass.
And each mission is different hence why it makes no sense to make a standard BEO return vehicle for these kinds of missions. The return capsules in these cases are tiny.

>There really haven't been many Foton missions.
ESA has bought 7 to date. Far more than BEO sample returns in that time.

>Putting something in space for a few days, and then bringing it back is just not that important. Foton was thrown together cheaply, which is what makes sense for such experiments.
Why would you assume it would do exactly the same as Foton? Foton is very limited but even then the science is there. A better vehicle could do longer duration's, exposure facilities (very limited on Foton), complex microgravity maneuvers ESA wanted to do with columbus.
If there was really no market for this why would spaceX have proposed DragonLab? Why would NASA have pursued X-37 and JAXA HOPE-X?

[Anonymous No.7064700]

>>7064499
>hence why it makes no sense to make a standard BEO return vehicle for these kinds of missions.
Did I say anything about it making sense to develop a standard BEO return vehicle? What I did was point out that samples come from BEO, and a LEO re-entry vehicle has no relevance to sample return missions.

Re-entry vehicles aren't hard.

>If there was really no market for this why would spaceX have proposed DragonLab?
I didn't say there's no market. DragonLab isn't some new vehicle development. It's not even a new vehicle construction. It's a used Dragon capsule from an ISS resupply mission. And the re-entry capability is not the main attraction, rather it's the shirtsleeve environment with power and a life support option.

What I've said is that PRIDE is not being developed for practical use, nor will it offer cost savings, and it's not developing a new capability, either. PRIDE is a technology testbed for spaceplanes. Any carrying of payloads is strictly a secondary use.

They're dreaming of a space shuttle. An actual reusable launch vehicle, not just a little winged capsule that's a payload for a launch vehicle.

[Onononos No.7064869]

>>7064240
>Furthermore, if there is a major reduction in launch costs, the development of return vehicles will become trivial because it will be possible to afford multiple test flights, instead of doing this crazy shit where you spend a hundred million dollars and years preparing for one test flight of an experimental vehicle that will never carry payload.
Akchually... the lack of return vehicles is the reason launch costs don't go down. If it was so trivial to bring your ship from orbit, all the rockets would be reusable. This experimental vehicle is a step towards that direction. A step that was done before by US or USSR, but not Europe. This isn't even it's final form... I hope.

You may be right about Dragon reusability. This is a question of refurbishing costs. We will see.

[Anonymous No.7064914]

>>7064869
>Akchually... the lack of return vehicles is the reason launch costs don't go down. If it was so trivial to bring your ship from orbit, all the rockets would be reusable.
It's a lot harder to make a launch vehicle reusable than to just design a return vehicle.

See, a return vehicle is a payload of the launch vehicle. The material carried by the return vehicle can be an arbitrarily small fraction of the loaded mass of the return vehicle. You can have a 5-ton return vehicle carrying a 1-ton payload, and it works. That's not a problem.

For a launch vehicle to work, the empty mass has to be much smaller than the loaded mass. The rocket equation dictates how much delta-V you can get out of a mass difference. Without enough delta-V, you just don't go to orbit, and you don't have a launch vehicle.

So return vehicles are easy mode, reusable launch vehicles are nightmare mode. You don't build a meaningfully reusable launch vehicle by starting from a return vehicle.

[Anonymous No.7064919]

>>7064700
>Did I say anything about it making sense to develop a standard BEO return vehicle? What I did was point out that samples come from BEO, and a LEO re-entry vehicle has no relevance to sample return missions.
You (or whoever started this line of debate) brought BEO into it as if it was a disadvantage that PRIDE couldn't do it.

>What I've said is that PRIDE is not being developed for practical use, nor will it offer cost savings, and it's not developing a new capability, either.
The demand is there, that is the practical use. We shouldn't allow European aerospace to stagnate, that's another. At the very base of it Vega is priced at half what a Falcon 9 is because F 9 is a much larger vehicle. Additionally it flies in Vega which was always going to be a very low rate launcher, more flights is simply getting more out of the fixed costs. We don't know how much Dragonlab or PRIDE will fly for but what we do know is PRIDE is European. Money spent on PRIDE thus stays in Europe and is an investment rather than just a loss. Even if it was more expensive it wouldn't be a loss for ESA, they have devolved a new technology and expertise and the member states are happy with the return.

>They're dreaming of a space shuttle.
Which is never going to happen anytime soon under french leadership of launchers. The Italians want a spaceplane, they can get it.

[Anonymous No.7064941]

>>7064919
>You (or whoever started this line of debate) brought BEO into it as if it was a disadvantage that PRIDE couldn't do it.
No, it was first claimed that "sample return" was an application of PRIDE. Samples to return come from BEO.

>The demand is there, that is the practical use.
The demand is tiny, and does not require anything so elaborate as a spaceplane.

>more flights is simply getting more out of the fixed costs
It's spending more on the incremental costs, you mean. Don't try and turn that around into a savings.

>Money spent on PRIDE thus stays in Europe and is an investment
You could make this argument if you just gave a bunch of bureaucrats money to spend on whores and kush in Amsterdam. Just because it's spent domestically doesn't mean either that it's an investment or not a loss. For it to be an investment, it has to be something that's likely to pay off down the line.

>We shouldn't allow European aerospace to stagnate
So mindless copying of the Americans is how you avoid stagnating?

[Anonymous No.7064974]

>>7064941
>it was first claimed that "sample return" was an application of PRIDE.
Didn't see that comment until now.

>The demand is tiny
7 soyuz flights over 10 years is a big investment for tiny demand.

>It's spending more on the incremental costs, you mean.
Because it's low rate fixed costs dominate. And I said getting more out of it, not saving money. Don't misquote me.

>Just because it's spent domestically doesn't mean either that it's an investment or not a loss.
Which is not how the member states see it. ESA practices regional return. If money is spent in Europe programs are more likely to be funded. Soyuz flights till the end of ISS would be cheaper than commercial crew when you add in development but cost isn't everything.

>So mindless copying of the Americans is how you avoid stagnating?
Bullshit. The materials used on it are new to spaceflight. The aerodynamics are new. The control structures have never been flown. You really think X-37 was the first time anyone had thought of this? Japan was years ahead.

[Onononos No.7065007]

>>7064914
Obvious is obvious.

>You don't build a meaningfully reusable launch vehicle by starting from a return vehicle.
You'll need it too, tho.
But ye, not keeping my breath waiting for reusable ESA launcher. Was keeping it yesterday watching SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.7065028]

>>7064974
>7 soyuz flights over 10 years is a big investment for tiny demand.
It's less than one flight per year. How is reusability supposed to pay off on that kind of schedule?

>>Just because it's spent domestically doesn't mean either that it's an investment or not a loss.
>Which is not how the member states see it.
Oh shut the fuck up. Show me where they redefine "investment" to mean "any and all regional spending".

Of course governments prefer to spend in their own countries rather than send money outside of where they're collecting taxes. That has nothing to do with whether the spending is an investment.

>>So mindless copying of the Americans is how you avoid stagnating?
>Bullshit. The materials used on it are new to spaceflight. The aerodynamics are new. The control structures have never been flown. You really think X-37 was the first time anyone had thought of this?
So any little difference makes it an important new development?

>Japan was years ahead.
So where's their spaceplane?

[Anonymous No.7065064]

>>7065028
>How is reusability supposed to pay off on that kind of schedule?
Has nothing to do with flight rate.

>That has nothing to do with whether the spending is an investment.
Does that make any fucking difference what you call it? No. It doesn't change the actions.

>So any little difference makes it an important new development?
Not what I said. You're entire argument consist of misrepresenting my points. It demonstrated new TECHNOLOGY, whether or not the concept is new is completely fucking irreverent.

>So where's their spaceplane?
Japan perused the concept before anyone else.

I'm not going to argue with you any more, you're going in circles and just attempting to make the most mundane points.

[Anonymous No.7065145]

>>7065064
>>How is reusability supposed to pay off on that kind of schedule?
>Has nothing to do with flight rate.
This is an incredibly fucking stupid claim. Making a system reusable is expensive and risky. You save little money by reducing the units produced in a short production run, because the first of anything is the most expensive, and they get cheaper quickly from there. Technology also becomes obsolete over time, and money has time value (you have to factor in a concept of interest for comparing earlier to later expenses).

You need a reasonably high flight rate for reusability to save any money. Seven flights in ten years is not a schedule for a reusable system.

>Japan perused the concept before anyone else.
You have to be fucking kidding me. Everyone and their dog has had an orbital spaceplane concept since before the space shuttle flew.

And yet the only orbital spaceplanes have been the space shuttle and X-37.

It's the realization that counts, not the concept.